Rejoinder: “Statistical disease mapping for heterogeneous neuroimaging studies”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We thank all the discussants for sharing their valuable viewpoints on the proposed statistical disease mapping (SDM) framework. In our article, we addressed the issue of imaging heterogeneity at both the global and local scales by efficiently borrowing common information shared among a large number of diseased and normal subjects. Understanding such imaging heterogeneity is critical in the development of urgently needed analytic approaches to the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of many diseases (e.g., Alzheimer's disease, brain cancer, and lung cancer), as well as precision medicine broadly. The discussants emphasized improvements to disease mapping by introducing some alternative modelling strategies and many possible future directions in this research topic. The sections of this rejoinder are organized by discussant to address each of their comments separately.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.082 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".